Boy, have schools changed since the 1920's!

Motek ↓

Thu, May 10 2007, 3:54 pm

in beverly cleary's autobiography, describing her childhood in the 1920's, she writes:

Quote:

With 40 and sometimes more pupils in a class, our teachers had taught us the fundamentals of survival in society. Every one of us could read. We had learned to speak distinctly and correctly to cope with the arithmetic necessary for daily life. Girls were capable of making their own clothing - not that many wanted to - and to prepare simple, nutritious meals. Boys had learned basic carpentry....

School was businesslike place. Teachers and parents expected us to learn but not to think for ourselves; we expected to be taught...No one, not even ourselves, expected school to amuse us, to be fun, or to be responsible for personal problems...

Of the 16 teachers who taught us in eight years, most were pleasant, firm and impersonal, which was the attitude we expected of teachers.

Ruchel ↓

Thu, May 10 2007, 5:41 pm

Quote:

With 40 and sometimes more pupils in a class

This hasn't changed in public school... I have been in classes of 32, 35, 38... I think 43 was the max I saw.

Quote:

pleasant, firm and impersonal

This was the case for older teachers (40 and +).

↑ Motek ↓

Thu, May 10 2007, 8:36 pm

I consider the fact that all children graduated knowing how to read (among other things) rather significant.

I don't think highly of the education today's children get in public school where too many can't read and write at grade level, they have classes on cultural diversity where gay/lesbian parents are included, where condoms are distributed, where one's self is applauded, etc.

Want to google to find out what the teen pregnancy rate was back in the 1920's compared to today?

daisy

Thu, May 10 2007, 9:31 pm

I'm just wondering if those who didn't/couldn't read just didn't graduate. Was it so common for everyone to graduate back in those days? Maybe only the ones who showed aptitude stayed in school?

I just can't imagine that everyone read back in those days. Maybe Beverly Cleary just had a smart class?

↑ Mrs.Norris ↓

Thu, May 10 2007, 10:45 pm

Motek wrote:

Want to google to find out what the teen pregnancy rate was back in the 1920's compared to today?

it's quite difficult to blame the schools on teenage pregnancy's, surely the parents should be making the ramifications of unprotected/illegal s-x absolutely clear instead of waiting for the schools to do their job for them? I think people like to use schools as a scapegoat for all bad things.

Truth is you can not possibly compare the 1920's to now. Everything is different. Look at all that has been acomplished in such a short space of time - and contrary to popular belief it is not all bad!

HindaRochel ↓

Fri, May 11 2007, 12:08 am

In the '20s kids did drop out, only it wasn't necessarily seen as dropping out...they went to school.
What was the literacy rate back then and among which groups? Itinerant workres anyone? How many of those children even went to school?
Girls idn't go to school pregnant. They either went to visit their aunt for several months or the were married and had very well developed preemies.

Some things are worse some things are better.

healthymama ↓

Fri, May 11 2007, 10:22 am

Quote:

I consider the fact that all children graduated knowing how to read (among other things) rather significant.

In the 1920s there was no special education. School was for smart kids. All children who had any sorts type of learning needs were sent to work, if they were lucky, or sent to live in an institution, if they were unlucky.

So, yeah, I'm sure that all of the kids in her class could read. That doesn't really mean anything, though.

southernbubby

Fri, May 11 2007, 10:28 am

Schools who concentrate on basics and have high expectations such as Japanese schools usually have better educated graduates. Why is it that we so many immigrants from India with advanced degrees? I do agree that those who had learning disabilities did not graduate. My dyslexic brother- in -law left school long before he would have graduated.

↑ Ruchel ↓

Fri, May 11 2007, 11:28 am

Mrs.Norris wrote:

who said it was that much better back then?

There were problems too. It's not true that there was no discipline problems in some schools!! And oy did the teachers hit!!!
But at the same time, the "Brevet" degree (13 years) was the equivalent of today's bac (hs graduate). Sad

Not to mention, at my mom's time, you needed 12 out of 20 to graduate, and today 10 out of 20 is enough. Ok, 12 is very rare and hard to get... maybe 2 or 3 pupils in a class of 35...... but yeah.

↑ Ruchel

Fri, May 11 2007, 11:41 am

Quote:

I don't think highly of the education today's children get in public school where too many can't read and write at grade level, they have classes on cultural diversity where gay/lesbian parents are included, where condoms are distributed, where one's self is applauded, etc.

B’h I escaped the homo stuff, and I can’t say one’s self was applauded. I would even say the teachers were often harsh…
I don’t remember cultural diversity classes, but I do remember some kids unable to read or write properly in grade 6. Many kids found it crazy because I almost never misspelled words.
I remember one s-xual education lesson, but I can’t say it was graphic or even understandable… it made the kids laugh more than educate them on anything. I would say, well… it was close to my and dh’s kalla chosson classes.

The condoms ended up as water bombs and the tampons were hanged in the classroom Rolling Eyes

Quote:

I'm just wondering if those who didn't/couldn't read just didn't graduate.

Yes

Quote:

Was it so common for everyone to graduate back in those days?

Nope! The clever ones graduated the Brevet (13 years), the clever and rich the bac (hs graduation).

Quote:

Maybe only the ones who showed aptitude stayed in school?

Definitely. High school was for the clever and the rich only.

↑ Motek ↓

Fri, May 11 2007, 1:32 pm

Raisin wrote:

Motek, well educated they may have been, but it was the generation who were educated in the 20's who allowed the holocaust to happen.

Like my grandmother? Confused

Beverly Cleary? Confused

It was this generation's children who fought the Nazis.

As for the claim, "School was for smart kids" - can you back that up and define "smart"?

↑ shayna82 ↓

Fri, May 11 2007, 1:35 pm

I would guess it means, the kids who did well, worked fast, didnt struggle on each page, new concepts.. the kids who gave their teacher an easy time, and she just opened her mouth or wrote on the board and it was as simple as that... kind of how lots of todays teachers are... no patience for kids who dont fit that mold of grasping concepts in null amount of time.

↑ Motek ↓

Fri, May 11 2007, 1:53 pm

I don't think so. I think it had a lot to do with no TV, no computers, no electronic games. A climate in which school was serious business, no fooling around. A time when adults were respected. You didn't talk back to your parents. You weren't searching for yourself. The focus was not on feeling good about yourself but on doing your work, in the case of children - schoolwork. Standards were high. You copied something over again and again until it was done well.

It definitely was not all roses, as B. Cleary writes. She did not make it sound like a utopia.